Hello Junio, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Up to now the number printed was calculated assuming that the > > current revision to test is bad. Given that it's not possible > > that this always matches the number of suspicious revs if the > > current one is good, the maximum of both is taken now. > > > > Moreover I think the number printed was always one to high, > > this is fixed, too. > > I know you mean well, but is it really worth an extra rev-list > for this off-by-one, I wonder? It may be more than one. E.g. b / \ / \ a--c--e \ / \ / d Given a is bad, e is bad, b is rev to test. I didn't verify it, but I think the current code gives one (as it assumes b is bad and counts one to much). If b is good there are two suspicious left. I'm sure you can construct an example where it differs still more. Best regards Uwe -- Uwe Kleine-König http://www.google.com/search?q=half+a+cup+in+teaspoons - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html